Re: [Bug-gnubg] bug in 3 ply equities

[Øystein Johansen]

Joseph Heled wrote:
> I agree we need a better net for containment cases, a sub-class of 
> crashed. The bad news is I am still unable to train such a beast, 
> perhaps due to chicken-and-egg problem, perhaps because of other 
> problems as well. I need fresh ideas, which might come over time, or if 
> someone else joins me in working on the nets.

Aha! Split the crashed net into "crashed" and "contain"! How many 
positions do we need in a contain training database? Is it possible to 
do _very_ simple manual rollouts of the positions, say 108 games with 
variance reduction. Possible? Feasable? Distributed to voluenteers of 
course.

My personal brainstorming continues:
What if we bootstrap a contain net with TD training? Instead of starting 
from the starting position, we start with a contain position initaially, 
or several contain positions done in random sequence? does this seems to 
be possible? Igeuss the weights might not converge to good values but it 
might be worth a try.

> However, positions such the above are not a big concern at this stage. I 
> know it is an eyesore to see such evaluations. I know your confidence 
> might be shaken each time you see it, but my main concern is playing 
> strength. GNUbg checkers play is reasonable here, and will not make 
> wrong cube decisions at most scores. Later, when we get play problems 
> out of the way, we can aim higher and see if we can get more absolute 
> equities right.

I see your point. If we just can get slightly better checker play we can 
build a database of rollouts for this position type, which can be used 
for supervised training.

-Øystein